This is The Prophecy. The Prophecy is much more than seeing into the future. For The Prophecy sees without the limits of time. For The Prophecy sees what is, what was, and what always shall be.
Evidence suggests that China’s approach to its nuclear strategy is evolving. It is vital to understand the drivers of these changes.
China’s nuclear strategy has remained relatively constant over the past few decades, but its nuclear arsenal appears to have been expanding rapidly in the past few years. Beijing is also continuously modernising and diversifying its nuclear delivery systems. China’s 2006 Defence White Paper provides the most authoritative description of Beijing’s nuclear strategy. The document states that China pursues a “self-defensive nuclear strategy.” Its traditional nuclear strategy is premised on a limited nuclear arsenal for assured retaliation and a no-first-use policy. However, the recent changes, especially in four verticals—quantity, quality, diversity and operations patterns—raise questions about China’s changing nuclear strategy.
China is also expanding its Rocket Force brigades. Between 2017 and 2019, China added over 10 new missile brigades—this is an unprecedented expansion from 29 to 39 brigades in only three years.
First, there is a quantitative change in China’s nuclear capabilities. In 2020, the United States (US) Department of Defence China Military Power report estimated that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had around 200 nuclear warheads in its arsenal. However, the latest 2022 China Military Power report highlights that the PRC’s nuclear arsenal likely exceeds 400 operational nuclear warheads—a level that would not have been attained for a decade, according to the Pentagon’s previous estimate. Furthermore, the Pentagon projected that at this pace, China would have around 1,000 warheads by 2031 and 1,500 by 2035—on par with 1,550 warheads allowed to the US and Russia under the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START Treaty). Furthermore, China is also expanding its Rocket Force brigades. Between 2017 and 2019, China added over 10 new missile brigades—this is an unprecedented expansion from 29 to 39 brigades in only three years. Currently, China has over 40 operational PLA RF brigades. It has recently constructed around 350 to 400 solid-fuel missile silos at Yumen, Hami, Hanggin Banner, and Jilantai. Previously, China only operated 20 missile silos for several decades for its DF-5 liquid-fuelled intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The growing construction of silos indicates changes in China’s operational posture and practices. For instance, it is noted that the 14 silos at Jilantai are reserved explicitly for training and developing newer concepts of operations.
Table 1: Estimated global nuclear warheads inventories
Second, China is also improving the quality of its nuclear delivery systems. Over the past few years, China has worked on the accuracy and survivability of its nuclear arsenal. For instance, China’s latest long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the solid-fuelled Dongfeng (DF)-41, reportedly has a circular error probability of 100 meters. Furthermore, its dual-capable “hot-swappable” theatre-ranged delivery system, the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, is more accurate than the older version of the DF-21 missile. On the survivability issue, China’s rapid expansion of a silo-based ICBM force highlights its attempt to move towards a launch-on-warning (LOW) nuclear posture. LOW refers to a launch at an adversary on detecting an incoming missile before the adversary’s missile hits the target. As China’s nuclear strategy scholar, Fiona Cunningham, highlights this reflects Chinese concerns about the disadvantages of land-based mobile nuclear forces, whether their survivability, mobility, communications, or cost. The PRC is also working on multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV), and the latest 2022 China Military Power report highlights that China’s DF-5B ICBM can carry five MIRVs.
Third, along with the quantity and quality, China is diversifying its nuclear delivery system. It is advancing its nuclear triad consisting of land-based, sea-based and air-based nuclear delivery systems. The most reliable element of the Chinese nuclear force is the land-based, road-mobile, MIRV-capable DF-41 with an operational range of 15,000 km. However, China’s Type 094 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), also known as boomers, are considered the most essential tool of their tactical deterrence. It is reported that China has around five to six operational Jin-class SSBNs armed with JL-2 and possibly JL-3 submarine launch ballistic missiles (SLBMs), capable of reaching the US. Furthermore, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s latest report highlights that Chinese H-6 bombers, which can deliver nuclear weapons, are now considered fully operational. The PRC is also developing a new nuclear-capable subsonic strategic stealth bomber, Xian H-20, and an air-launched ballistic missile, both of which could enter service in the next couple of years. These developments have brought the PRC to the cusp of a credible nuclear triad for the first time.
The most reliable element of the Chinese nuclear force is the land-based, road-mobile, MIRV-capable DF-41 with an operational range of 15,000 km.
Finally, the PRC is also developing newer operational patterns and concepts. With the recent infrastructure changes, the PLARF will likely begin storing nuclear warheads close to its launch brigades or silos. Historically, Base 67 (formerly Base 22), situated deep in the Qinling [秦岭] mountain range, is responsible for maintaining China’s nuclear warheads. But Chinese security experts David Logan and Phillip Saunders, in their latest research, highlighted that the Rocket Force’s nuclear-warhead handling regiments, which used to be under the jurisdiction of missile bases, are now under the command of the central warhead depot. This means there is an intent to move towards a centralised control system by distributed warhead handling practices. With this background, China may posture their silo forces to be on higher alert to enable a LOW capability, with missiles prepped to launch with live warheads on a rotating basis.
Table 3: PLA RF Bases
Base Number
Nature of Work
City
Base 61
Operations
Huangshan
Base 62
Operations
Kunming
Base 63
Operations
Huaihua
Base 64
Operations
Lanzhou
Base 65
Operations
Shenyang
Base 66
Operations
Luoyang
Base 67
Warhead Stockpile
Baoji
Base 68
Engineering
Luoyang
Base 69
Test and Training
Yinchuan
Source: Ma Xiu, PLA Rocket Force Organization, China Aerospace Studies Institute.
Besides these developments, China is also working on developing support infrastructure like early warning remote sensing satellites and advanced ground-based radars. It has also recently tested its new hypersonic glide vehicle, possibly with a fractional orbital bombardment system. Some conclusive evidence highlights that China’s approach to its nuclear strategy is evolving. It is extremely important to understand the drivers of these changes. David Logan and Phillip C. Saunders’ recent publication insightfully attempts to discern these factors. More such contributions from scholars from different regions of the world would help provide a nuanced understanding of the growing discrepancy between the PRC’s declaratory nuclear policy and advancing nuclear capabilities.
Suyash Desai is a research scholar studying China’s defence and foreign policies.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s).
Russia-Ukraine war and smaller tactical weapons among top reasons
Yasushi Kudo, president of Genron NPO, goes through the results of an annual China-Japan survey at a press conference in Tokyo on Oct. 10. (Photo by Ryohtaroh Satoh)
TOKYO — More than half of Chinese people believe a nuclear war could occur in the near future as Russia threatens to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and superpowers fail in nuclear disarmament, according to a public opinion poll released on Tuesday.
The findings were part of an annual China-Japan joint opinion survey conducted by Genron NPO, a Japanese think tank, and China International Communications Group, a publishing organization.
According to the survey, 52.6% of Chinese respondents said the world could see a nuclear war “in the next few years” or “not-so-distant future.” Those who said it would not happen totalled 38.6%, and 8% did not know.
Japanese respondents were less pessimistic with 39.9% saying nuclear conflict was possible in the next few years or not-so-distant future, 20.2% ruling it out and and 39.6% saying they did not know.
The main reason concern among respondents from both countries was the Ukraine war. The second reason in China was that small, easily used nuclear weapons are being deployed by nuclear powers. In Japan, there was concern that North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons.
Yasushi Kudo, president of Genron, told reporters on Tuesday that the general public’s trust that nations will not use nuclear weapons is “crumbling.” He said that of tactical nuclear weapons, the failure to enforce nuclear disarmament by superpowers and North Korea’s program are among the reasons for increased concern.
The survey produced an interesting finding — the growing number of Chinese who blame Beijing for the intensified conflict between their country and the U.S.
While 43.8% of Chinese respondents said the U.S. was solely responsible, 43.9% answered that both nations are responsible — up from 15.2% in last year’s survey.
Anming Gao, vice president at the China International Communications Group, told reporters that Chinese people’s expectations for improving the bilateral relationship appear to lie behind these numbers.
“China-U.S. relations are the most important in the world,” said Gao. “The world also wants improvement.”
Regarding the China-Japan relationship, only 5.8% of Chinese said that the recent release of treated water from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean could become an obstacle for the relationship — a fraction of the 36.7% of Japanese answering the same question.
Although much of the poll showed disparities between China and Japan, more than 60% of respondents from both countries chose “peace” as the most important goal East Asia should pursue.
“Peace and cooperation, these goals have not changed at all for the respondents,” said Kudo. Yet, the lack of diplomacy and cultural exchange leads to a “sense of hopelessness,” he said. “Dialogue is the key to a breakthrough.”
Hamas attacks Israel in a savage and brutal manner killing thousands of Isrseli civilians.
Israel declares war on Hamas, flattens and occupies Gaza and kills thousands of terrorists and innocent Palestinian women and children.
Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad fires rockets into Israel in solidarity with Hamas.
Israel launches devastating a counter attack against Hezbollah and unleashes a brutal and vicious ground offensive in Southern Lebanon and occupies it.
Israel launches air strikes against Iran for consistently providing 70% of funding and lethal weapons to Hamas and for consistently providing 90% of funding and lethal weapons to Hezbollah.
Iran hits back with air strikes and the declaration of war against Israel.
The Arab world declares an Intifada against Israel and declares war against her.
America, the EU, the UK, Australia, Canada, India and their allies stand with Israel.
Russia, China, North Korea, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Arab world and their allies stand with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinians and Iran.
The war in Ukraine gets even worse as Russia crushes the Ukrainian forces and takes more territory.
NATO finally jumps into the fray in the Ukraine and Europe is plunged into total war with the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
China, Iran, North Korea, the Arab world and their allies side with Russia whilst America, NATO, the EU, the UK, Canada, Australia and their allies side with Ukraine.
China invades and occupies Taiwan making good their threat and claim on the island and asserts her power in the South China sea.
Hidden away in the private room of an underground restaurant in Seoul, a disparate group of South Koreans have gathered for a clandestine lunch. Among the mix are politicians, scientists, and military people, some of whose identities are too sensitive to reveal. This is the meeting of the newly formed Forum for Nuclear Strategy, and their lunchtime agenda is ambitious – to plot out how South Korea can develop nuclear weapons.
This once-fringe idea has exploded into the mainstream over the past months. Even South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol raised the possibility during a defence meeting, making him the only president to have put this option on the table in recent times. Now newspaper columns trumpet the idea daily, while a staggering three-quarters of the public support it. South Koreans have grown anxious about their nuclear-armed neighbour to the north, and on Wednesday Mr Yoon is heading to the White House, seeking President Joe Biden’s help.
South Korea previously flirted with the idea of developing nuclear weapons in the 1970s, when it ran a secret programme. But when the United States found out, it issued an ultimatum: Seoul could carry on, or have the US defend it, with the full force of its existing nuclear arsenal. It picked US support, and to this day tens of thousands of US troops remain stationed on the Korean peninsula.
Since then, the geopolitical situation has shifted dramatically. North Korea is building ever-more sophisticated nuclear weapons that can target cities across the US, leaving people to question whether Washington would still come to South Korea’s defence.
Here is the scenario they chew over: a belligerent Kim Jong-un attacks South Korea, forcing the US to intervene. Mr Kim then threatens to detonate a nuclear bomb over the US mainland unless it withdraws from the war. What does Washington do? Does it risk having San Francisco reduced to rubble to save Seoul? Probably not, is the conclusion those at the secret lunchtime meeting have come to.
“It is irrational to think another country should protect us. This is our problem and our responsibility,” said Choi Ji-young, a forum member and member of South Korea’s ruling People Power Party.
Image caption,The members of South Korea’s new Nuclear Policy Forum want the country to go nuclear
The chairman of the forum, academic Cheong Seong-chang, presented their suggested plan. The next time the North tests a nuclear weapon, Seoul would withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). If, within six months, Mr Kim has not agreed to discuss giving up some of his weapons, Seoul would start building its own. Mr Cheong argues that this would reduce the probability of a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula, as Mr Kim would be less likely to attack, knowing the South could strike back.
But Jenny Town, from the US-based think tank 38 North, challenges the assumption that a nuclear-armed South would make the North less adventurous. “More nuclear weapons does not make the world safer from nuclear use,” she said. “If you look at India and Pakistan as an example, this is not what we have seen. If anything, being nuclear-armed has sort of given them both the green light to go a little further.”
A nuclear-armed South Korea is absolutely not what Washington wants. Yet, this beast is partly of America’s making. In 2016, then-President Donald Trump accused South Korea of free-riding. He threatened to make Seoul pay for the US troops stationed on its soil, or else he would withdraw them. The fear those words instilled in people has not lessened with time. An increasing number of South Koreans, acutely aware that America’s promises are only as good as its next leader, now favour building the bomb.
On a recent Sunday afternoon, at a local sauna in Seoul, people young and old from all backgrounds gathered to ease their weekly aches, while indulging in beer and fried chicken. While it might seem strange to discuss nuclear proliferation in such a setting, these days, it is almost in the realm of small talk.
“The US is not going to use its nukes to defend us, so we should be in control of our own defence,” said 31-year-old Koo Sung-wook, who swayed this way during his time in the military. He served in 2010, during a major crisis when North Korea shelled a South Korean island, killing four people.
“It felt like a total emergency. Units were calling their parents and writing wills,” he recounted. Now he worries not just about North Korea, but China too. “We are surrounded by these great powers and walking on eggshells around them. To be competitive, we need to have nukes.”
Almost everyone at the sauna agreed, even 82-year-old Hong In-su. A child during the Korean War in the 1950s, she said she was anti-nuclear weapons, before reluctantly concluding they were a necessary evil: “Other countries are developing theirs, so I don’t see how we can go on without them. The world is changing.”
Image caption,Hong In-su is wary of South Korea getting nuclear weapons but thinks the country needs them
Another woman was torn over whether the US would defend South Korea, and thought it “better to have nukes just in case”, while a young mother worried that Seoul’s current relationship with the US could change at any moment.
Washington is now scrambling to reassure its ally of its “iron-clad” commitment to its defence. Earlier this month it stationed a gigantic nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the southern port of Busan. But to the frustration of US policymakers, such reassuring gestures no longer seem to be working.
Seoul’s politicians have grown wary of being kept in the dark, unclear about what would trigger the US president to push the nuclear button on their behalf. Currently, there is no requirement for Mr Biden to even tell Mr Yoon before doing so. “At the very least we could build in a mandatory phone call, so long as it is understood that this is still the US president’s decision,” Ms Town said.
Yang Uk, a defence analyst with the Seoul-based Asan Institute, was in the room with President Yoon when he made his remarks about South Korea going nuclear. He claims Mr Yoon was indirectly pressuring the US. “The US is so reluctant to discuss its nuclear policy with South Korea and yet if a nuclear war broke out on the peninsula we are the ones who would suffer the most,” he said.
Seoul is pushing to be more involved in the planning and execution around nuclear use. That could mean having US nuclear weapons stationed in South Korea, or to have a nuclear sharing arrangement, similar to that in Europe, where South Korea is able to use US weapons in the event of a war. A less drastic option would be to create a joint nuclear-planning group.
Image caption,US forces practice defending South Korea from a North Korean attack
The US is unlikely to offer up much, but knows it must deliver something concrete that President Yoon can chalk up as a win, and sell to the South Korean public. Even so, it may prove too late. This once inconceivable idea is now so firmly planted in the South Korean psyche, it is difficult to see how it can be uprooted.
Going nuclear is a mammoth decision. The current international order is built on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and those that threaten this order, such as Iran and North Korea, have paid a high price. Analysts say the South Korean public has probably not considered the consequences. The US could pull out of its defence commitment, China might retaliate ferociously by hounding South Korea with sanctions, and their country could end up isolated, another failed pariah state, its dazzling international reputation in tatters.
At the sauna, people seemed unperturbed by these scenarios. Only one woman conceded that if it meant South Korea becoming “an axis of evil” then it was probably not worth it.
But that is unlikely to happen. South Korea is too strategically and economically important for it to be shunned like North Korea. Most analysts do not even believe the US would end its decades-long military alliance. Instead, the concern is that a potential South Korean nuclear armament would create such a crack in the non-proliferation regime, it would cause other countries to follow.
Only 82-year-old Hong In-su seemed to grapple with the dangers ahead. She quoted a Korean proverb that roughly translates to “you fall in your own poop”, or in other words, this could seriously backfire.
“I do think nuclear weapons will come back to harm us,” she said. “I feel bad for the next generation.”
Russia has “suspended” participation in the New START weapons treaty, which limits the number of strategic warheads both Moscow and Washington can keep ready to use. Once it expires in 2026, the pact seems unlikely to be renewed.
China refuses to negotiate at all, and is increasing its nuclear arsenal rapidly. It now has more than 400 warheads, more than the UK or France. If Beijing continues investing at its current rate, it would have 1,500 by the middle of the next decade.
In time, then, there will be three nuclear superpowers, not just two. That will make the geopolitics of these missiles even more complicated and may embolden the smaller powers.
Postures are shifting, as we are reminded in Britain by the possible return of US nuclear weapons to our shores. America keeps warheads in various allied nations including Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey: it withdrew its nukes from the UK after the Cold War, but publicly available documents suggest that they may soon be returning.
Air Force chiefs have told Congress they want to invest in RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk for a “potential surety mission” – a term usually used in relation to nuclear weapons.
It’s possible to argue that the war in Ukraine has brought tension between Russia and the West to unprecedented levels – certainly the highest they have been since the end of the Cold War.
There are certainly those who say things are worse than ever before. As of January, the famous “Doomsday Clock” operated by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reads “90 seconds to midnight”, the closest to nuclear armageddon it has ever been. In the judgment of the Atomic Scientists, the end of civilisation has never been closer than it is now.
How can Britain and the West protect themselves?
Proliferation is certainly a concern. The five original nuclear weapon states – the US, Russia, UK, France and China – have been joined by four more over the decades: India, Pakistan, North Korea and, it is widely thought, Israel.
However, it’s important to point out that weapons proliferation is not, in fact, necessarily or inevitably linked to nuclear power. It is true that most of the world’s weapons are made of plutonium produced in reactors. Nonetheless, the great majority of the 30-plus nations that have civil nuclear power programmes have no weapons. Two of the nine nuclear-weapon nations – Israel and North Korea – have weapons but no power plants.
Fear of nuclear weapons isn’t a valid reason for not having nuclear energy and the mere fact that a nation may seek to establish a nuclear power programme does not mean that it will also acquire weapons. In fact, the odds are against it. The Non Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are effective in most cases.
As for sheer numbers of weapons, the situation is not as bad as it might be. Peak Nuke was way back in 1986, when there were a little over 70,000 warheads in the world’s arsenals. Today there are thought to be approximately 12,000. The US has 1,744 warheads actually ready to use and Russia has 1,588.
When nuclear weapons were first invented, there was only one way to use them: simply drop the nuke out of a heavy bomber above the target. Both the US and Russia continue to maintain heavy bombers intended to deliver nuclear weapons.
However, this method of attack is relatively simple to defend against: the bomber can be shot down by fighters or anti-aircraft missiles before it arrives.
The reason people think nuclear war would trigger the inevitable end of the world is the inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM). ICBMs are widely regarded as unstoppable: hence the idea that once they are flying, armageddon cannot be prevented.
Inter-continental ballistic missiles such as the US’s Minuteman III are widely regarded as unstoppable CREDIT: U.S. Air Force
Classic ICBMs are kept in buried, heavily hardened silos. Even a powerful enemy nuke needs to strike close to a hardened silo to put it out of action. An alternative ploy is to put the ICBM on a mobile vehicle or rail car, meaning that it is harder for an enemy to know where it is and target it with his own nukes.
Both hardened silos and mobile launchers were attempts to deal with the terrible dilemma of the early Cold War: the fear that a US president or Soviet premier might have only minutes of warning that enemy ICBMs had been launched before they struck.
If the inbound pre-emptive strike was targeted against his own nuclear weapons, in “counter force” style, he would have to order a counter strike within minutes or lose his ability to do so.
Worryingly, there would always be the possibility that the warning of an attack was a mistake. Such false alarms were a real problem on more than one occasion and “launch on warning” remains a deeply frightening idea.
Hardened silos, which would only be knocked out if hit by several nukes, were an attempt to preserve an ability to hit back even after being attacked.
The grim logic of counter-force pre-emptive strike was one reason why the opposing superpowers built such huge arsenals of weapons. One way of remaining able to hit back even after an enemy attack would be simply to have more nukes than the enemy could destroy in one go.
However, the US found a way around this dynamic: satellite navigation. The ubiquitous “satnav” – found in every modern phone, every modern car and in many other things besides – was originally developed as a way of making nuclear missiles more accurate.
The US began launching the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites from 1978. With GPS, a US warhead would hit almost on top of its target and knock out even a hardened silo reliably. In “counter force” warfare, one US warhead was now worth several Soviet ones.
The Soviet Union surpassed the USA in warhead numbers the year GPS was launched. However, the US didn’t bother to increase its arsenal: indeed, US warhead numbers declined slightly in the 1980s even as the Soviet stockpile grew massively. America was fighting smart, not hard.
Safety in submarines
Another development had occurred at the time that made nuclear warfare much less likely: the appearance of the nuclear powered, nuclear armed ballistic missile submarine, known as SSBN.
Submarine-launched missiles form the nuclear triad – the main systems of nuclear weapons delivery CREDIT: REUTERS
Unlike conventionally powered submarines, nuclear vessels can stay fully submerged for months on end. A nuclear sub makes its own fresh water and its own air: the only real limits on its endurance are food for the crew and the need for maintenance. A properly designed and carefully operated nuclear submarine that never seeks contact with the enemy is well-nigh impossible to locate.
Nobody could know where the other side’s missile submarines were. No matter how devastating a first strike might be, the SSBNs would remain. No premier would ever need to make a “launch on warning”. Even if a warning was correct and a strike was indeed inbound, his subs could deliver a devastating response even days or weeks later.
There was no way to eliminate an enemy’s subs, so nobody would be crazy enough to try a first strike. It’s very possible that nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed submarines saved the world.
These three main systems of strategic nuclear weapons delivery – bombers, land-based ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles (SLBMs) – are often called the “nuclear triad”. The idea that all three are necessary justifies big budgets and lots of personnel for the US Air Force.
Other countries, less well-funded, can see the fairly obvious reality that once you have operational submarines, you don’t need the other two parts of the triad.
The UK never got around to acquiring any land-based ICBMs and dispensed with its “V-force” nuclear heavy bombers as soon as it had subs. France, for its part, also has a force of SSBNs allowing it to keep one at sea at all times. It has sensibly disposed of its land-based ICBMs and similarly has no heavy bombers.
The idea of getting rid of ICBMs (or never having any, like Britain) has other things to recommend it other than simply saving large amounts of money.
It is land-based ICBMs that lead to the idea of counter-force targeting with its implied need for huge numbers of weapons. Worse still, it’s land-based ICBMs that create the terrifying “launch on warning” scenario. Land-based ICBMs are not just a bit pointless once you have SSBNs, but actively and unnecessarily dangerous things to have around.
A former US defense secretary, William H Perry, has pointed this out. In 2016 he wrote a New York Times op-ed suggesting that the US should not replace the current Minuteman III ICBM. Sadly, Perry’s idea didn’t gain any traction.
Next generation weapons
As is common in nuclear strategy, the ideas tend to be old but the actions are sometimes new.
Consider ballistic defence. The idea of stopping ballistic missiles in flight has been around forever but did not initially gain much traction as there was a Cold War deal, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, that put hard limits on ballistic missile defence efforts.
However, the US withdrew from the treaty in 2002 and since then it has built some small-scale ballistic missile defences. These include the Ground-based Midcourse Defence (GMD) interceptor and the SM-3 naval missile, both intended to intercept warheads in space, and terminal defence weapons like the THAAD, the SM-6 and the famous Patriot missile, which are for stopping warheads as they plunge down through the atmosphere.
A THAAD interceptor is designed to stop missiles in flight CREDIT: REUTERS
Now, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are now developing weapons that can outwit ballistic defences. In particular, both China and Russia are working on “hypersonic” warheads. These are confusingly named: the word hypersonic normally just means something which goes faster than Mach 5. Existing ICBM warheads already travel at Mach 20 as they descend at the end of their flight.
The new hypersonic “Avangard” warhead, which Putin claims is already in Russia’s armoury, is launched on a normal ICBM stack but it doesn’t go up high into space. Instead it takes a lower, faster trajectory, and drops into the atmosphere much sooner, completing a good part of its journey in a hypersonic glide. It’s not a new idea: this was called “boost-glide” back in the 1960s, but it never caught on then.
Hypersonic missiles don’t let you deliver as big a payload on a given rocket, which is why normal ballistics became standard. However, the lower flight path means the warhead only appears on radar right at the end of its travel, rather than early on. Straight away this makes it much harder to intercept.
GMDs and SM-3s don’t work in the atmosphere, meaning that the only possible defence is terminal interceptors like Patriot, THAAD and SM-6. The fact that the hypersonic warhead is in atmosphere for much of its flight means that it can potentially manoeuvre and alter course significantly, making it hard to predict where it will go and get an interceptor in the way.
China has also tested hypersonics and has combined them with another old but mostly unused idea: fractional orbital bombardment.
Here the rocket acts like a space launch system instead of lobbing its payload on a high ballistic arc. As soon as it gets out of the atmosphere it tips over and boosts sideways to massive speed, putting the warhead into a low orbit like a satellite.
When the warhead arrives in the vicinity of the target – or in the case of the Chinese tests of 2021, when it arrives at the start of its hypersonic glide – it uses rocket thrust to slow down and drop out of orbit.
Fractional orbital flight is extremely fast and can reach any point on Earth, potentially arriving from a totally unexpected direction such as via the south pole. Again, it doesn’t deliver as much payload for a given rocket but the low-flying warhead cannot be spotted until it has almost arrived, and the point at which it will de-orbit is unpredictable.
The US already has medicine for fractional orbital, however: the SM-3 naval missile can easily reach low orbital altitudes and indeed a US cruiser used an SM-3 to shoot down a malfunctioning spy satellite in 2008. The trick would be to know that the fractional-orbital weapon was coming and have a warship beneath its path.
Putin and Xi have claimed to be developing the next generation of hypersonic missiles CREDIT: Alexei Druzhinin, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP
There are reasons to suspect that Putin’s and Xi’s super weapons are not as super as they might seem. And we should remember, too, that advanced Chinese and Russian hypersonics, fractional-orbitals and other weapons are designed to penetrate US defences that mostly don’t exist.
But land-based ICBMs are a bad idea. The US should join its Western nuclear allies and focus on submarines. The US would save so much money by dropping its ICBMs that it could do almost anything.
Once that’s done, practical Western defences that can stop various kinds of missiles will make sense in mostly non-nuclear scenarios: the defence of aircraft carriers and other conventional forces in the Pacific, for instance.
Missile defences that could resist attacks by minor powers like North Korea are also practical and affordable. Another advantage of the current defence systems is that they have already caused Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to panic and waste huge amounts of money.
North Korea is among nations that have threatened nuclear warfare CREDIT: KCNA via KNS
However, the temptation to pour away vital resources on huge warhead stockpiles, vast missile fleets and impenetrable defences should be resisted. As it did with GPS satnav, the US and its allies should seek to fight smart, not hard, in the coming new era of 21st century nuclear competition.
Armageddon or amnesty?
How worried should we really be then about the Doomsday Clock ticking closer to midnight?
The Board of Sponsors for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which sets the clock, was established in December 1948 by no less than Albert Einstein and J Robert Oppenheimer.
But the hands of the Doomsday Clock are not set by the Board of Sponsors, they are set by a different board. This has 18 members, and it is not made up of atomic scientists. Three are qualified in political science, one is a lawyer and ex-Democratic Governor of California.
Three served in the Obama administration; none in any Republican administration. Only six of the 18 Clock setters have any qualifications in physics or engineering, and only one of those can be described as an “atomic scientist”: that is Alexander Glaser, whose career has been devoted entirely to nuclear disarmament. Several other Clock setters are past or present disarmament campaigners.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is an organisation working towards nuclear disarmament, then, though it prefers to say it is dedicated simply to providing information about nuclear weapons.
The same is true of similar organisations like the Federation of American Scientists, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the British American Security Information Council.
None of these organisations have any influence in Russia, China, India, Pakistan or North Korea, and they are not attempting to build any. In effect they are Left-wing campaigners for nuclear disarmament by the West. (Sometimes almost incoherently Left-wing: the Union of Concerned Scientists, for instance, considers that nuclear weapons are “racist”.)
The “scientists” and their not-so-subtle campaigning have totally failed to convince the Western public that their governments should disarm unilaterally. It’s obvious that as long as others have nukes, we should have our own.
It’s also obvious, of course, that nobody wants mistakes to be made with nukes, for there to be too many of them, or for nuclear weapons to proliferate to more nations than already have them. To that extent, we can all agree with the anti-nuclear “scientists”.
But the idea that we are edging closer to armageddon must be scrutinised more closely.
Yes, the Ukraine war means tensions between the US and Russia are as high as they have been in decades.
However, it could also be said that the Vietnam war was a not dissimilar situation: one superpower heavily and unsuccessfully engaged on the ground, and the other supplying weapons and covert help to its opponents.
And while Russia and China are arming up rapidly with seemingly new technologies such as hypersonic missiles, all this does is maintain the balance of terror that has prevented nuclear war – or perhaps a horrifying conventional total war between the superpowers – for 60 years.
There are other ways that nuclear weapons can save us from armageddon.
In 2010 the US National Research Council warned that nuclear weapons are the only practical means of defending planet Earth against a major asteroid impact of the sort that could wipe out the human race, and one day inevitably will if we should ever disarm ourselves.
Today’s nuclear weapons picture does not necessarily mean we are moving closer to midnight – even if the landscape is shifting under our feet.
Nuclear exchange with China is ‘much closer’ than Americans think: Gordon Chang
Gatestone Institute senior fellow Gordon Chang on national security adviser Jake Sullivan’s talks with China’s foreign minister and Elon Musk describing Taiwan as an ‘integral part of China.’
Gatestone Institute senior fellow and China expert Gordon Chang issued a dire warning about the possibility of nuclear exchange with China as tensions remain inflated on the world stage.
“We’re much closer to a nuclear exchange than Americans think,” Chang said on “Mornings with Maria” Monday. “China is preparing to go to war… China is surveying the United States for nuclear weapons strikes, so we’ve got to realize the gravity of this. The problems inside the Chinese regime right now indicate that Xi Jinping in the rocket force, which controls almost all of China’s nuclear weapons, he’s now installing officers who will obey his orders to push the button when he gives it.”
Along with the message, Chang urged U.S. businesses to pull out of China, blasting the Biden administration for urging companies to stay there.
U.S. President Joe Biden, right, stands with Chinese President Xi Jinping before a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit meeting, Nov. 14, 2022. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon / AP Newsroom)
“The Biden administration has been dog-whistling for companies to stay in China, and that is absolutely the wrong thing,” he told host Maria Bartiromo.
“Of course, there’s going to be economic damage to the U.S. as American companies get out of China, but we really don’t have a choice because the alternatives are far, far worse.”
Chang’s warning followed talks between Biden National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Malta in a bid to cool U.S.-China relations, a meeting Chang blasted as “a mistake before it even started.”
Gordon Chang warned that the Biden administration’s policies are helping strengthen China. ((Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) / Getty Images)
“We’ve sent four senior officials to Beijing in a row. Why Wang Yi couldn’t come to the United States, I have no idea,” he said.
Overshadowing the concerns, Taiwan remains fearful China will act on its reunification effort to bring the island country back into the mainland fold. Meanwhile, billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, who has massive amounts of manufacturing in China, called Taiwan an “integral part” of China, sparking outrage from the Taiwanese as well as critics like Chang.
“Taiwan is certainly not for sale,” Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu responded.
“The problem here is it’s not just Elon Musk, it’s also Larry Fink, it’s Ray Dalio. It’s all of them,” Chang said of Musk’s comments. “They have incentives to repeat Communist Party narratives, and we must eliminate those incentives if we’re going to maintain our sovereignty and if we’re going to keep our country.”
Discover the countries with the highest chances of survival in the face of nuclear war, asteroid impacts, or other catastrophes. Get ready to book your tickets.
By WALLA! Published: JUNE 23, 2023 15:21
When it comes to the threat of a nuclear war, an asteroid impact, or even a volcanic eruption, some countries are better equipped to survive and rebuild after such disasters. A recent study has identified the top countries that offer the highest chances of survival. Let’s explore the findings and discover the best places to seek refuge in times of crisis.
Catastrophe survival rankings: Australia and New Zealand lead the way.
What you need for post-apocalyptic survival: Food production, energy, and more
The researchers behind this study compared 38 different island nations based on 13 key factors that predict post-apocalyptic survival. These factors included food production, energy self-sufficiency, manufacturing capabilities, and the resilience of local climate after the disaster. Australia and New Zealand excelled in these areas, securing their spots at the top of the survival rankings.Top ArticlesRead More
Australia’s robust infrastructure, abundant energy reserves, strong defense budget, and substantial food supply buffer played pivotal roles in its high ranking. The country has the capacity to feed a significantly large population even in the face of dire circumstances. However, its close military ties with Britain and the US also make it a potential target in a nuclear war.
New Zealand’s unique strengths:
New Zealand, on the other hand, has several advantages that contribute to its survival potential. Its long-standing status of having zero nuclear weapons ensures its safety in the event of nuclear war. Additionally, New Zealand’s proximity to the ocean protects it from drastic temperature drops caused by a prolonged periods of darkness. The nation boasts a highly efficient food export economy, ensuring an ample food supply for its citizens, even in worst-case scenarios.
Despite New Zealand’s abundant food resources and strong social cohesion, the study raises concerns about its reliance on trade. In the event of a global trade shutdown, the nation’s social stability could be compromised. Other island nations face similar challenges, as the collapse of industries and social cohesion could put their resilience into question.
Superpowers like China, Russia, and the US may experience significant drops in food production during a nuclear winter, necessitating the adoption of new agricultural technologies.
While no country can be fully prepared for the devastation caused by a nuclear war or asteroid impact, the study highlights Australia and New Zealand as the most favorable destinations for survival and rebuilding. These nations possess the necessary resources, infrastructure, and agricultural capabilities to sustain their populations even in the harshest conditions. However, it is essential to stay vigilant and address potential vulnerabilities to ensure a brighter future for humanity, regardless of the challenges we may face.
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Background photo: Wikipedia
As Russia continues to wage war on Ukraine, there are growing fears that an incident — deliberate or otherwise — could occur at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.
Located in the Ukrainian town of Enerhodar, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has been on the brink of disaster ever since Russian troops occupied it days after the full-scale invasion began in February last year.
This echoes statements by ZNPP workers, who have been raising the alarm for some time over the numerous safety “norms, principles and regulations” that “have been violated” by Russian forces.
Bondar, who is a member of the Ukrainian democratic socialist organisation Social Movement, said, “if engineers cannot safely perform their duties with full access to the facility, the safety of the nuclear power plant cannot be guaranteed.
“Due to the abysmal situation at ZNPP” Bondar added, “an incident (deliberate or accidental) cannot be ruled out”.
Military target
But concerns over ZNPP, along with Ukraine’s other critical infrastructure, have been further heightened in the wake of the June 6 destruction of the Kakhovka dam — which evidence strongly suggests was blown up by Russian forces.
With Ukraine’s counter-offensive slowly advancing, government officials are warning Russia may seek to damage the plant should Ukrainian forces make progress on the Russian-occupied left bank of the Dnipro river.
Russia’s use of ZNPP as a military base to attack nearby territories is already a gross violation of international law. Bondar points out that “United Nations observers have confirmed the presence of mines and military tracks on the territory of the plant.”
But Russia has also used its control of “ZNPP as a part of its nuclear blackmail against Ukraine, alongside constant direct and indirect threats to use nuclear weapons”, a tactic Bondar says “people all over the world should condemn”.
Legacy of Chernobyl
Should a disaster occur at ZNPP, it would not be the first of its kind in Ukraine.
“The Chernobyl nuclear disaster is a traumatic event in Ukrainian history with lingering consequences”, explained Bondar. “It could be argued that it was one of the final straws that broke the Soviet Union.
“Another legacy of the Chernobyl disaster was the desire of the newly independent nation to dismantle the third-largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world that Ukraine inherited after gaining independence.
“Hence, another nuclear accident (even a minor one) could reopen deep historic wounds in addition to the trauma of the current Russo-Ukrainian war that started in 2014.”
Moreover, Bondar notes, “given the turbulent state of world affairs, the very last thing the world needs is a nuclear incident”.
Setting precedent
In light of all this, Social Movement activist Taras Bilous, in an article for openDemocracy, noted that the international community has an opportunity to set an important precedent, given this is the first war “to be fought directly in the vicinity of a large nuclear power plant”.
Bilous, who is currently serving in Ukraine’s Territorial Defence Forces, believes the United Nations (UN) should establish ZNPP as a demilitarised zone and deploy peacekeepers there.
This is in line with suggestions from UN secretary general António Guterres and Ukraine’s state nuclear energy company.
While Russia would likely oppose the proposal, Bilous argues a UN General Assembly resolution on the issue “could be a means of pressuring Russia to agree”.
“This would be particularly true if the measure was supported by countries that have so far abstained on or voted against the resolutions regarding the Russian invasion.”
Given the issue of nuclear security should unite all countries — regardless of their positions on the war — Bilous writes, “a country voting against, or abstaining on, this issue would reveal their obvious support for Russia’s nuclear blackmail of Ukraine”.
Such a resolution could also be opposed by the Ukrainian government, who might prefer to attempt to regain control of ZNPP as part of its counteroffensive.
But given the unlikelihood of passing a resolution demanding Russia immediately hand back ZNPP to Ukraine, Bilous writes, “the creation of a demilitarised zone is a much better scenario in terms of nuclear safety” given the ongoing nature of the war.
The Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign (USSC) has initiated an international petition calling on the UN General Assembly to establish a demilitarised zone around ZNPP.
Bondar believes that “if the proposed petition leads to a vote at the UN General Assembly, it will be a major success for grassroots activism.
“We need to exert global social pressure on the UN to become a more effective international body to mitigate numerous crises.”
During a press conference in Kyiv, the Ukrainian president claimed his Russian counterpart orchesterated the plane crash which killed the mercenary leader and several of his inner circle last month according to “the information we all have”.
Mr Zelensky made the comment off-hand when asked a question about Mr Putin and did not offer any fresh evidence to support the claims which have been denied by the Kremlin.
“The fact that he [Putin] killed Prigozhin that also speaks to his rationality, and about the fact that he is weak,” Mr Zelensky said.
He added: “Putin is left with just one step: instil fear in the West with his nuclear weapons … There will be moments when they are moving their nuclear weapons from one place to another to exert pressure on the United States.”
His comments came after four people died in Ukraine following Russian air strikes in different parts of the country overnight and into Friday.
Key Points
Russia downs drone in Crimea – Kremlin official
Zelensky’s home town hit by missile
Ukraine reports successes in counteroffensive for second day in a row
Musk’s Starlink interference slammed by Zelensky aide
US sends Ukraine controversial depleted uranium weapons
Supplying depleted uranium weapons ‘criminal act’, claims Russia
Ukrainian drones downed near Moscow and two more Russian cities
Volodymyr Zelensky has said that Vladimir Putin was behind the death of Wagner Group boss Yevgeny Prigozhin.
The mercenary leader died in an unexplained plane crash with his top lieutenants last month.
Ukrainian president Mr Zelensky made the claim on Friday but provided no evidence to back up his assertion made during a press conference in Kyiv.
“The fact that he killed Prigozhin – at least that’s the information we all have, not any other kind – that also speaks to his rationality, and about the fact that he is weak,” Mr Zelensky said.
The Kremlin says all possible causes of the crash will be investigated, including the possibility of foul play. It has called the suggestion that Russian president Mr Putin ordered the deaths of Mr Prigozhin and his men an “absolute lie”.
By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
(Washington DC) Massive destructive power may now be quietly and secretly lurking beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean, ensuring responsive 2nd-strike capability in the event the US is subject to nuclear attack.
Indeed a US Navy nuclear-armed Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine recently conducted a “port visit” to a Naval Base in Guam. The intent here is both clear and self-evident, and specifically cited in a Navy description of the deployment … “deterrence.” While the specific location and operational scope of a nuclear-armed submarine is never disclosed for security reasons, the existence of the USS Kentucky (SSBN) in Guam is unmistakably related to a message of strategic deterrence.
“The visit reflects the United States’ resolve and commitment to the Indo-Pacific region with continued extended deterrence to our regional allies and demonstrates the flexibility, survivability, readiness, and capability of U.S. Navy submarine forces,” an essay from US Submarine Forces, Fleet Forces Command says.
The concept of strategic deterrence, which is the very foundation of the Pentagon’s nuclear triad, is based on a fundamental paradox introducing the prospect of catastrophic destruction for the purpose of ensuring peace. It may seem like an unambiguous contradiction, yet that is precisely the intent. Strategic deterrence regarding nuclear submarines, which the Navy description calls the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad, is intended to prevent any nuclear-armed power from considering a first-strike nuclear attack. The USS Kentucky assures that any first=strike nuclear attack will be responded to with a devastating, massively destructive counterattack. The message is clear … any country attacking the US with nuclear weapons will be destroyed quickly. US Navy nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines are armed wtih Trident IID5 nuclear missiles equipped with multiple re-entry vehicles and therefore capable of exacting large amounts of destruction upon an attacking country from thousands of miles away. The range of the Trident IID5 is known to be at or greater than 4,000 miles, therefore nuclear-armed Ohio-class submarines can secretly conduct clandestine deterrence missions from “unknown” locations thousands of miles away.
“Homeported at Naval Base Kitsap, Kitsap, Washington, USS Kentucky is a launch platform for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, providing the United States with its most survivable leg of the nuclear triad,” a Navy description reads.
Clearly the Pentagon and White House are clear that the US does not intend upon or even consider some kind of nuclear first strike, but rather bases its destructive weaponry purely upon responsive defenses. Should a potential adversary be assured of rapid and complete destruction, they certainly might be less inclined to contemplate nuclear attack as a realistic option.
China Threat
Sending a clear message that the US nuclear deterrence capacity is very much intact and effective may be a familiar DoD strategy, yet one has to consider the known reality that China’s explosive nuclear weapons expansion is by no means lost on the Pentagon. The Pentagon’s annual China reports consistently raise alarm about the pace of Chinese nuclear weapons modernization, and just several years ago former Commander of Strategic Command Adm. Charles Richard pointed out satellite photos showing ICBM “silos” being built on mainland China. China’s nuclear ambitions have been on the Pentagon’s radar for quite some time.
The Prophecy Blog 